Judge: Nathan Vu, Case: 2020-01167208, Date: 2022-10-10 Tentative Ruling
Please Note: The hearing on this matter has been changed to 8:30 A.M.
Case Management Conference
The case management conference in this matter will be conducted immediately after the hearing on the motions to compel.
Motions to Compel
Plaintiff Tina Thuy Quynh Gia Le’s motions to compel further responses to the form interrogatories (set one), the special interrogatories (set one), the requests for admission (set one), and the requests for the production of documents (set one) is DENIED.
Plaintiff Tina Thuy Quynh Gia Le is ORDERED to pay sanctions to Defendant Christian Mai in the amount of $750 within 15 days of service of the notice of ruling.
Plaintiff Tina Thuy Quynh Gia Le moves to compel Defendant Christian Mai to serve further responses to the form interrogatories (set one), the special interrogatories (set one), the requests for admission (set one), and the requests for the production of documents (set one).
Once interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for the production of documents are served upon a party, that party must serve responses within 30 days of service (plus a number of additional days if the discovery requests are not personally served). (See Civil Proc. Code, §§ 2030.260, 2031.260 & 2033.250; see also Civil Proc. Code, §§ 1010.6, subd. (a)(4)(B), & 1013.)
If the responses are deemed to be deficient, the requesting party must give notice of a motion to compel further responses within 45 days after service of verified responses (plus a number of additional days if the discovery requests are not personally served). (See Civil Proc. Code, §§ 2030.300, subd. (c), 2031.310, subd. (c), & 2033.290, subd. (c); see also Civil Proc. Code, §§ 1010.6, subd. (a)(4)(B), & 1013.)
The 45-day time limit is mandatory and “jurisdictional”, and the court is without authority to grant a late motion. (See Sexton v. Superior Ct. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410 [late-filed motion to compel must be denied where objection was raised at hearing, even if objection was not made in opposition papers].)
On December 9, 2021, Plaintiff propounded form interrogatories (set one), special interrogatories (set one), requests for admission (set one), and requests for the production of documents (set one), on Defendant. (Creed Decl., ¶ 2-3.) Plaintiff received Defendant’s discovery responses by 02/01/2022, when Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to Defendant’s counsel to meet and confer regarding Defendant’s responses.
Plaintiff filed these motions on 08/02/2022, at least 6 months after receiving Defendant’s discovery responses.
However, it does not appear that any of Defendant’s responses were verified. (See Doan Decl., Exh. 1.) The 45-day deadline is triggered only by the service of verified responses. (See Civil Proc. Code, §§ 2030.300, subd. (c), 2031.310, subd. (c), & 2033.290, subd. (c).) Where a verification is required, an unverified response is invalid and is the equivalent of no response at all. (See Appleton vs. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) The motions to compel are therefore not untimely.
Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(a) requires that “[a]ny motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include a motion: (1) To compel further responses to requests for admission; (2) To compel further responses to interrogatories; (3) To compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents or tangible things . . . .”
Here, Plaintiff failed to provide a Separate Statement as required by the Rules of Court. Nor has Plaintiff stated in the motion papers which specific discovery responses are deficient or why they are deficient. Plaintiff only asserts that “Defendant responded but made several unfounded objections to important relevant requests and interrogatories.” (Mem. P&A.s at pp. 3:7-8 & 4:4-5.)
While Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter does state specific discovery requests that are at issue, it does not state what Defendant’s responses or objections were to the requests, or why those responses or objections were deficient. More importantly, the letter was written more than 6 months prior to the filing of the motions to compel and there is no way for the court to know which discovery requests are still at issue.
Given the failure the file a Separate Statement or the deficiencies in the Memorandum of Points & Authorities, the court is unable to rule on the merits of the motions to compel.
The Civil Procedure Code requires the court to impose monetary sanctions against a party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses, “unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Civil Proc. Code, §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h), & 2033.290 subd. (d).)
Here, Plaintiff has not put forward any substantial justification for filing deficient motions to compel or pointed to other circumstances that would make the imposition of a sanction unjust. The court must award sanctions, which shall be in the total amount of $750, calculated as 1.5 hours of counsel’s time at $500 per hour.
Defendant shall give notice of this ruling.